社民連、民主黨和學民思潮等維園年宵攤檔，被反對人士滋擾，令他們的籌款活動受阻超過一小時。這些勢力有系統地針對泛民力量。它是香港黑金政治的開始，泛民絕不能掉以輕心。當受害者向警方求助時，前線警員竟表示這是公眾地方，警方無權干涉，可見前線警員未明白處理這種反示威的法理依據。
查實終審法院的2012年第12，13，14號案件，已釐清了一些法律觀點。終審法院的判詞對所有的本地法官都有凌駕效力，它的判決十分重要。
編號FACC No 12， 13& 14
of 2012案是有關兩名社民連成員為了抗議港鐵加價，在2011年4月的港鐵活動中衝上台撒「溪錢」及搶走時任運輸及房屋局局長鄭汝樺的咪叫口號。二人被控以違反《公安條例》第17B（1）條和第17B（2）罪成，不服上訴至終審。終審在案中考慮的重點是《公安條例》中的犯罪元素。
245章《公安條例》的主要目的是維持公共秩序，管制集會、遊行及示威。警務處處長給警察出了一份『關於處理與公眾集會及公眾遊行有關的《公安條例》的指引』，其中引用的第一個案例就是『女皇對陶君行[1995] 1 HKCLR 251』案。事源學聯在八九民運後一直認為《公安條例》為一惡法，不符合“相稱性”的法律原則。學聯採取公民抗命手法以期望在法院抗辯中推翻惡法。陶君行是當年學聯代表，因沖擊公安法而被告。
《公安條例》中的17B 條『公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為 』尤為富爭議性。
17B 條(1) 為：『任何人在為某事情而召開的公眾聚集中作出擾亂秩序行為，或煽惑他人作出此種行為，以阻止處理該事情，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處第2級罰款及監禁12個月。』
17B 條(2) 為：『任何人在公眾地方作出喧嘩或擾亂秩序的行為，或使用恐嚇性、辱罵性或侮辱性的言詞，或派發或展示任何載有此等言詞的文稿，意圖激使他人破壞社會安寧，或其上述行為相當可能會導致社會安寧破壞，即屬犯罪，一經定罪，可處第2級罰款及監禁12個月。 』
警方一向喜歡引用第17條控告示威者，因為下級法院不會理會憲法原則，被告往往容易入罪。今趟『公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為
』罪終於被終審法院審視。
讓我們看看終審法院的理解。
6.
There is no definition in the statutory provision and no comprehensive
definition by any court of this term “acts/behaves in a disorderly manner”.
10.
the term “acts/behaves in a disorderly manner” should be given an
ordinary and everyday meaning
這裏表示擾亂秩序行為沒有一個法律上的定義，法官應以一般人的理解為理解方法。
41.
in Wise v Dunning， a Protestant
preacher who used deliberately provocative language and gestures before a
hostile Roman Catholic audience was held to have been properly bound over since
a breach of the peace by members of his audience was the natural consequence of
his acts. Sedley LJ put it this way in a
more recent decision:
“.. The next and critical question for the
constable， and in turn for the court， is where the threat is coming from， because it
is there that the preventive action must be directed.”
法官在第四十一段裏採納了一個外國案例。在該案例裏，一名新教的教士到天主教教徒區以挑釁性的言語和手勢挑釁對方，引起沖突。法官認為責任一方在挑釁者，警察應該制止。
53.
Section 17B(2) has two principal elements. It involves in the first place， proof of noisy or disorderly behaviour;. Secondly， the offence
requires proof that such conduct was performed with intent to provoke a breach
of the peace， or in circumstances where such conduct
was likely to cause a breach of the peace.
在這段中，法官指出挑釁者引起對方反應，激使了他人破壞社會安寧，挑釁者就觸犯了17B 條(2)。(而不是被激使了的他人)
55.
The offence under section 17B(1) targets a “person who at any public gathering
acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of
the business for which the public gathering was called together”. The main issue which arises concerns the
meaning of “preventing”.
法官在這裏表示：實質地妨礙別人和平集會，就觸犯17B 條(1)。
197.
There is no offence known to the criminal law as “breach of the peace”;
a person cannot be charged with breaching the peace. And yet， under s 61 of the
Magistrates Ordinance， he can be bound over to keep the peace， and is liable to be imprisoned in default of compliance with the
order.
第197段表示：若不引起在場人士擾亂秩序，擾亂秩序本身並不能定為擾亂公安罪，但裁判官可引用裁判官條例第227章 第61條判被告簽保守行為，若被告再犯，便有可能被判監禁6個月或以下。
我們在近期見到很多對抗性的示威、反示威活動，被沖擊者可以要求警方落案控告對方阻礙正常的集會活動。更為甚者，若發生肢體沖突，對方可能要負起全部責任。
案件判詞有一段對未來的和平佔中活動十分重要，因為法院介定了何為和平集會，和平集會受法律保障。
141.
Article 17 of the Hong Kong Bill of Right isused the expression “right
of peaceful demonstration”. A similar expression is used in Article 11 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. In
this context， I would note the following passages from
the guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly 2nd edition published by
OSCE/ODIHR (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe / Office for
Democratic Institution and Human Rights) dated 25 October 2010:
“25. Peaceful assemblies: Only peaceful
assembly is protected by the right to freedom of assembly. The European Court
of Human Rights has stated that “[i]n practice， the only
type of events that did not qualify as ‘peaceful assemblies’ were those in
which the organizers and participants intendedto use violence.” Participants
must also refrain from using violence (though the use of violence by a small
number of participants should not automatically lead to the categorization as
non-peaceful of an otherwise peaceful assembly – see para 164). An assembly should， therefore， be deemed peaceful if its organizers
have professed peaceful intentions， and this should be
presumed unless there is compelling and demonstrable evidence that those
organizing or participating in that particular event themselves intend to use， advocate or incite imminent violence.
法官引用了歐盟人權委員會的和平集會指引，當中有二個重點。第一：集會組織者的原意是和平的，也有採取一定措施力求集會和平，那麼，集會就是和平集會。
第二：若中途出了亂子，事情也不會入組織者的章。
未來的和平佔中活動極有可能打上終審法院，戴耀廷和其他和平佔中的組織者應仔細閱讀這份判決書。
劉山青
7 /2/ 2014
沒有留言:
張貼留言